The law has to apply to all equally, not to just the mature 16 year olds. So where do you draw the line between adult and child? Can an exceptional 10 year old be mature? I certainly know people over 18 who should not be making life changing decisions for themselves. As a society we have to pick some point as the age of adulthood. Where would you place that mark?

I know 'legal age' is tricky, Moonliner. It's trying to make black and white something that cannot be black and white. And though I understand the need for rules and laws, I think that there has to be room for exceptions and/or flexibility. In this particular case, didn't the parents support their child's decision? Certainly in the case of abortion, I feel that a minor has the right to make that decision for herself because I don't believe a court of law should be able to force anyone to have a baby that's unwanted.

And, yeah, I realize that opens up a much larger can o' worms.

When it comes to who is an "adult" and who isn't, at least when the law gets involved, I think it needs to be reviewed case by case. Drawing a line makes sense, but being completely inflexible about that line just doesn't make sense to me.

Would feelings be the same if instead of "alternative treatments" the boy and his family had decided on no treatment and certain death (leaving aside whether the alternative treatment he is persuing is essentially the same as no treatment)?

Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists have faced this many times over the decades as they, for religious reasons, reject medical treatments that are considered the only death preventative for their children.

Is there a substantive difference between "Being 15 and of reasonably sound mind, I am rejecting this potentially life saving treatment in favor of Dr. (in botany) Hornerminer who is doing amazing things with auras and homeopathy" and "Being 15 and of reasonably sound mind, I am rejecting this potentially life saving treatment because god speaks to me and told me to."

What if the only reason the teenager believes in the alternative treatment is because he trusts his altnernative-believing parents more than doctors?

Very murky with big problems to either approach. Should ability to receive a driver's license be handled as part of a case-by-case review so that a precocious 14 year old can drive? Should I have to go through a competency exam to prove that at 23 I'm mature enough to drink legally? A political literacy test to show that I should have been allowed to vote at 15 but my coworker should still be deprived of the franchise at 32?

However, I consider suicide to be an acceptable rational decision and that in most cases the parents rather than the state should be the final arbiters. So while I think that family's decision is wrong I generally think it is their choice to make it while also believing that almost no 16 year old is sufficiently mature to truly make such decisions on their own.

I also find it interesting that they call it Abraham's Law and not Starchild's Law. (I'm sure the kid goes by Abraham but I tend to think that even if he hadn't it would still be Abraham's Law or something else.)

I'm with EH1812 on this one. It's a big can of worms when there isn't something firm. In my experience, most 16 year-olds can make rational and reasonable decisions regarding their health as much as almost any 32 year-old. 16 year olds and 32 year olds can both be suicidal, stupid, life-loving and intelligent, motivated and unmotivated - I feel as though age hardly plays a role in how much one wants to live, and how much one wishes for a quality of life to their liking.

Unfortunately, I didn't not follow this thread or the news all the way through, so perhaps there's an explained reason that I'm just not going to take the time to research. What I don't understand is, why did the law have to get involved in the first place? With the chemo kid, he'd been through it before and didn't want to go through chemo again. I can't think of a single person who has had an amazingly awesome experience with chemo. If you'd been through it once or twice before, only to end up with cancer again, would you want to give it a third try. It's like getting punched twice, and then going for another hit, just to see if it hurts less.

While I am always in favor of making health care available, I am more-or-less against making it mandatory. In many instances, I'd prefer a final judgment, should something like this ever make it to court, be deferred to the parents or parental guardians with heavy influence from the patient/teenager/kid. What every human wants in terms of their health and their life should be taken into consideration by the law, no matter their age.

At Disneyland, adulthood starts at 10.

At least if you are buying a ticket.

A bit of a resurrect. But I'm curious on how this story does or doesn't affect anybody's opinion.

What impact does the fact that the boy was 7 play in how you feel about the story as opposed to late teens in our original discussion?

Does it matter that there isn't an ideological reason for abandoning the chemotherapy (as with Christian Scientists and JW's on blood issues) but rather just being taken in by a quack?

Just to state the obvious, obviously there is no way of knowing that he would have lived any longer (or even as long) had the recommended course been followed.

Do you believe that all holistic treatments are "quack?"

I have to admit, I am terribly conflicted on this issue. To me, it's all so ironic because I wanted our MD to perform a very traditional surgery on Tori when it became obvious to nearly all that she wasn't responding to antibiotics. He allowed himself to be pressured by the HMO to not refer her to a surgeon, and by the time I circumvented their asses and got her in the damage was done. Now, we have a case where the parents want to go against traditional medicine, and they get the same fight.:rolleyes:

You brought up a good point, Alex- did the non-traditional treatment help or hinder in this child's case, and what was responsible for the brevity/longevity of his life, post-treatment? I suppose only those close to the case know with any certainty.

My guess is the chemo might not have saved him the first go-around. Consider he was on chemo for 3 1/2 months, then pulled off, the cancer came back, they put him back on chemo, and he eventually died. So chemo didn't save him either. I know the question will be "What if he'd stayed on chemo the first time?", but I still this his survival was in question either way.

Insofar as they are unscientific, yes. If they have subjected themselves to proper clinical study and been proven effective, then no.

Telling a set of parents that diet and supplements are the way to keep their child in remission from cancer (a remission caused by the chemo), definitely so.

If you claim to know something works without any objective evidence to support that claim, then even if you should later be proven correct you've been engaging in quackery.